This is the point I am trying to make. You call that a personal attack? This is a forum, not Caesar's Palace. I apologize if I uspet you in any way.

What point? That I am so hopelessly biased that I want to deny L159 its glorious Viking past?

Reread what you wrote. You basically accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias because my closest match is Welsh (actually he's an Englishman, born in Worcestershire). You questioned my integrity and motives rather than producing evidence or countering my arguments. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is.

The essence of what you wrote is that because I think my own ancestors were Celtic, therefore, I want to deny Germanic and/or Viking ancestry to the rest of you.

Hence, none of my arguments has any value, and you have no need to back up your "Norwegian Viking L159" theory with any real evidence.

Thomas Krahn also clearly stated that L159 is important to the Irish Sea Modal. I have stated this before. There is a correlation between the haplotype and L159 status, meaning a common ancestry. But to one outside the cluster, it means nothing. Ditto.

Holy Christmas. I'm off base?

I said you were way off base when you made your ad hominem attack and accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias. I explained why you were way off base, and, yeah, you were. I bit my own tongue and refrained from responding in kind.

Maybe L159 is a perfectly good SNP, but the fact remains that ISOGG has not added it to their R Tree yet, and they are usually pretty quick to add the latest SNPs; witness L226 and L193.

We can work on the assumption that L159 is a solid SNP. You still don't have much evidence that it is Scandinavian in origin, or, if you do, you aren't producing it.

I ran your one Scandinavian L159+, Duoos, in Ysearch, even though he doesn't have a Ysearch entry and I had to enter his markers manually. His closest haplotype neighbors all have British Isles surnames. One, McCloughan (YGUM9), is a 34/37 neighbor to Duoos. There are several others - Robinson (596U9), Nelson (SWX5J), Riley (9B9ER), and Glynn (2EHJX) - who are 4 away at 37 markers. After that there are quite a few who are 5 or 6 away at 37 markers, all with British Isles surnames. All that is not insurmountable evidence that Duoos is British or Irish in origin; he needs to go out to 67 markers. But I didn't see any Scandinavians in his haplotype neighborhood.

This is the point I am trying to make. You call that a personal attack? This is a forum, not Caesar's Palace. I apologize if I uspet you in any way.

What point? That I am so hopelessly biased that I want to deny L159 its glorious Viking past?

Reread what you wrote. You basically accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias because my closest match is Welsh (actually he's an Englishman, born in Worcestershire). You questioned my integrity and motives rather than producing evidence or countering my arguments. That is precisely what an ad hominem attack is.

The essence of what you wrote is that because I think my own ancestors were Celtic, therefore, I want to deny Germanic and/or Viking ancestry to the rest of you.

Hence, none of my arguments has any value, and you have no need to back up your "Norwegian Viking L159" theory with any real evidence.

Thomas Krahn also clearly stated that L159 is important to the Irish Sea Modal. I have stated this before. There is a correlation between the haplotype and L159 status, meaning a common ancestry. But to one outside the cluster, it means nothing. Ditto.

Holy Christmas. I'm off base?

I said you were way off base when you made your ad hominem attack and accused me of "pro-Celtic" bias. I explained why you were way off base, and, yeah, you were. I bit my own tongue and refrained from responding in kind.

Maybe L159 is a perfectly good SNP, but the fact remains that ISOGG has not added it to their R Tree yet, and they are usually pretty quick to add the latest SNPs; witness L226 and L193.

We can work on the assumption that L159 is a solid SNP. You still don't have much evidence that it is Scandinavian in origin, or, if you do, you aren't producing it.

I ran your one Scandinavian L159+, Duoos, in Ysearch, even though he doesn't have a Ysearch entry and I had to enter his markers manually. His closest haplotype neighbors all have British Isles surnames. One, McCloughan (YGUM9), is a 34/37 neighbor to Duoos. There are several others - Robinson (596U9), Nelson (SWX5J), Riley (9B9ER), and Glynn (2EHJX) - who are 4 away at 37 markers. After that there are quite a few who are 5 or 6 away at 37 markers, all with British Isles surnames. All that is not insurmountable evidence that Duoos is British or Irish in origin; he needs to go out to 67 markers. But I didn't see any Scandinavians in his haplotype neighborhood.

Rich,

You're a good man, and I appreciate your insight. Really, I learn a lot from these posts.

. . . I still believe that in the isles a large majority of L21 reflects pre-Germanic times but I think Norman and Viking contributions to isles L21 is also likely.

.... I suppose one could argue that those 67-marker Irish matches (Heaney, McGuire, Carroll) and those 67-marker Welsh matches (Banks, Morris, Evans, Jones, Morgan) are the descendants of vikings, but I wonder (Banks may be an English surname, but the rest are pretty well-known Welsh surnames).....

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything but since you brought up my R-L21* cluster (sub of 11-13) I'll give you the data I have.

Our Swede is actually a Swedish citizen, his MDKA is Sunesson, and he has genealogy going back to the late 1500's now. His ancestors are from the Östergötland area of Sweden which is on the Baltic Sea side.

There are multiple individuals of the below surnames but most are blocked in the U.S. The most frequent surnames (at least DNA tested) are the Banks, the Barrett's and the Watkins.

No matter what, other than the Swede, this cluster is very Wales-centric. The Irish folks in the cluster tie back to Wales, but there is a lot of Norman folklore tied up in it as well.

For instance, the Barrett's of Mayo claim they are descended of a Norman knight, named Baret, who came with William in 1066. They also have an old poem which states they and the Walsh's were Norman Invaders in Ireland who descended from the "Lords of Glamorgan." They were also called the "Welshmen of Tirawley."

This matches well with my own Walsh family and a book written in 1825 about the Walsh's using research with a Catholic priest over in Ireland.

Among the old documents they dug up from the times of Gerald of Wales, the proposed progenitor of my Walsh family, Philip Walsh, was written as a nephew and/or dear relative to the following:Raymond 'le Gros' fitz William Fitz GeraldWilliam Fitz Odo de BarryRichard de Clare (Strongbow himself)Robert Fitz Stephen

Fitz Stephen was also called a grandfather. My Walsh clan progenitor was a Norman knight with a horse, armor and the whole bit. He fought under Raymond le Gros and along side King Henry's illegitimate offspring. My best guess is my clan progenitor was an NPE but whether his paternal lineage was Norman or Briton is a big question.

I tend to think that by the time of the invasions of Britain and Ireland a 'Norman' only was a geographical identity among the French and all the normal French ancestries were present in that area in addition to the Viking element. NW France, including Normandy, is very high in L21, I would guess hugely higher than among the mainly Danish (I now there were others too) Vikings who settled in NW France. So, the Occam's Razor way of interpreting that is that most Normans in France were not Viking ancestry which, if true, in turn means most of the Normans who came to Britain (then Ireland) were not of Viking ancestry (not to mention all the Bretons, Flemings etc). I suspect that the Gallo-Roman/Latinate French/Frankish population in Normandy remained the bulk of the population after the Vikings arrived. If Jean's ideas that languages tend to change with genes is true then this would also support the idea of a thin Viking superstrate that was absorbed. I suspect that this pre-Viking (and pre-Frankish) NW French stock was actually very similar genetically to the pre-Germanic peoples of Atlantic Britain. That is certainly what the y-DNA and L21 in particular suggest and again it must be emphasised that L21 dominates the whole NW of France and cannot possibly be explained as a whole by the British settlements in coastal Brittany.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything but since you brought up my R-L21* cluster (sub of 11-13) I'll give you the data I have.

Our Swede is an actually Swedish citizen, his MDKA is Sunesson, and he has genealogy going back to the late 1500's now. His ancestors are from the Östergötland area of Sweden which is on the Baltic Sea side.

. . .

Of course, I did not actually name the cluster or the individual, just the fact that he has a number of fairly close Welsh matches, enough to make one wonder in which direction the "from-to" arrow points.

My own preliminary, but strong suspicion is British ancestry for the Swede, but, of course, I could be wrong, and all those folks with Welsh surnames could be the descendants of Vikings (even though Viking settlement in Wales was very limited) or of Normans who themselves were the descendants of Vikings.

The Gordian Knot for alleged Scandinavian L21 in the British Isles is the fact that the vast bulk of L21 there is pretty apparently not Scandinavian in origin. How does one pick out the Scandinavian L21 in the Isles (if there is any)?

Even if an L21 subclade is discovered that is found in both places, the immediate, natural, and completely reasonable conclusion will be that it is British or Irish in origin. Given the relatively small number of Scandinavians in the y-dna database, probably only 25% of whom are even R1b1b2, let alone L21+, a subclade like that would have to claim a big slice of the Scandinavian L21 pie to be even halfway convincing as native to Scandinavia. And the Scandinavian part would have to be more diverse in its haplotypes than the probably much larger British part.

Now, if one could find an L21 subclade that occurs only very rarely in the British Isles but commonly in Scandinavia, that might be convincing.

What about the purported remark by Dr. Hammer that as much as 50% of R1b in Norway might be L21?

I have no doubt that some portion of the L21 in Scandinavia is a later import, but I suspect that is most likely a small portion.

I don't find "near 67 marker marches" with Welsh and Irish persons too persuasive, as you yourself have often mentioned similar results between R1b's of different subclades. Considering the enormous preponderance of British Isles entries over Scandinavians in Ysearch, it doesn't surprise me that a Scandinavian is likely to have more matches with Britons than with other Scandinavians in that database.

What about the purported remark by Dr. Hammer that as much as 50% of R1b in Norway might be L21?

I have no doubt that some portion of the L21 in Scandinavia is a later import, but I suspect that is most likely a small portion.

I don't find "near 67 marker marches" with Welsh and Irish persons too persuasive, as you yourself have often mentioned similar results between R1b's of different subclades. Considering the enormous preponderance of British Isles entries over Scandinavians in Ysearch, it doesn't surprise me that a Scandinavian is likely to have more matches with Britons than with other Scandinavians in that database.

These Welsh and Irish matches are pretty close, close enough that there is little doubt they are all L21+ and all probably from the same neck of the woods. I wouldn't have mentioned them otherwise, because I don't consider a gd of 9 or 10 at 67 markers close. The matches I am talking about range from 63/67 to 60/67 for the Scandinavian with the Irish matches, and from 61/67 to 59/67 for the Scandinavian with the Welsh matches. While it is remotely possible that they mean absolutely nothing and are merely coincidental, the fact that they are all also "coincidentally" Irish on the one hand and Welsh on the other makes that very unlikely.

I think what Hammer actually said last year was that 50% of FTDNA's database of SNP-tested Norwegian R1b1b2s was L21+.

This is kind of a funny (in the sense of ironic, as well as amusing) thread to me, because I find myself arguing for a British Isles origin for some of our L21+ Scandinavians (only five of them, actually), and that is something I definitely don't like doing, since the out-of-the-Isles thing irks me to no end.

But I have to be honest. If I wasn't convinced, believe me, I wouldn't say what I'm saying.

It appears to me that much of the argument here over the whole P312/U106 issue involves the use of labels, so I am going to make one last attempt at stating what I believe to be the case with minimal refernce to the issue of ethnic labels. Obviously this is speculative to a degree, but it's all based on evidence and inferences drawn from the evidence.

The best currently available evidence suggests to me that the present division between P312 and U106 in Scandinavia, taken as a whole, is roughly an even split, although it no doubt varies by country and even region. While it is dangerous to assume that this is an accurate reflection of the distant past, I think the large presence of P312 there cannot be satisfactorily explained as solely the result of modern migration events. Thus I think it is reasonable to infer that P312 has had a significant presence in Scandinavia since the Bronze Age. The theory that it arrived there with the Bell Beakers and speaking an IE language, perhaps proto-Italo-Celtic, I consider to be a not unreasonable assumption, but I do not think the possibility that some may have arrived in other ways, such as with the Corded Ware culture, can be completely excluded at this point. The P312 in Scandinavia probably included elements of L21, U152, S68/L165, S182/L238, some unknown portion of what it currently identified as P312*, and possibly even some SRY2627. I am tempted to suspect that at least some of them reached the area by sea routes rather than by land.

I have spent far less time and effort looking at U106, and thus this is even more speculative than the above. I am convinced however that the history of U106 will only be discovered by analyzing it by subclade, rather than treating it as a monolithic whole. For a variety of reasons this is difficult to do at the moment. This is partially due to the manner in which the U106 project is organized. However a couple of new, probably significant SNPs within U106 have been discovered only very recently, and I think it is only a matter of time before people start looking at U106 by subclades. There seems to be little doubt that the greatest U106 concentration is in the vicinity of the Netherlands. The general assumption seems to be that it arrived there with Germanic people coming from Scandinavia and northern Germany during the Iron Age. However the complete or near complete absence of some U106 subclades (U198, L1) in Scandinavia makes me suspect otherwise. I suspect that the concentration in Holland dates to the Bronze Age, and that elements of U106 got to Scandinavia from the Netherlands, rather than vice versa. I doubt those parts of U106 not found in Scandinavia ever had much of a presence there. Instead they seem to have expanded from the North Sea across the Channel into England, before the Roman occupation there. An association with the Belgic people for this portion of U106 seems more likely to me than with the Germanics. I wouldn’t care to speculate what their language may have been. Other parts of U106, perhaps largely L48, seem to have expanded from the area around Holland into northern Germany and Scandinavia. Along with elements of P312, I1a and R1a and others, I think they eventually developed there into the Germanic people during the Nordic Bronze Age.

I do not address the issue of P312 and the Celts in much of the rest of Europe, because I really don't think there much disagreement about the connection.

We are just going to have to disagree on whether labeling P312 as Celtic and U106 as Germanic is a helpful generalization or a hindrance to determining the truth. I do believe one reason why I was able to envisage this scenario, whether it is correct or not, is because I have freed my mind from the supposed connection.

I have spent far too much time on this issue, looking at various projects and maps, bean counting and reflecting upon what it all means. This has been to the detriment of a number of other pursuits. So take your shots, let fly and have the last word if you must. I am going to do my utmost not to respond further. I really have other things to attend to, and it occurs to me that there is really no reason why I should care whether other people agree with me or not.

I don't think most of what you wrote above is wrong, but I still think one has to look at the overall distribution of P312 versus the overall distribution of U106. Although P312 is present in the old Germanic lands, its center of gravity is farther west and a better fit overall for Celtic than Germanic. U106 seems to have a center of gravity east and north of that of P312, which makes it a better fit for Germanic.

As for where U106 came from, whether it spread from the Netherlands to Scandinavia or vice versa or from somewhere else to both of those places, I guess one would have to look at the variance of U106 and find out where its most diverse haplotypes are. I seem to remember that Tim Janzen actually did that and found U106 to be most diverse in Eastern Europe, but I might be mistaken.

Perhaps all of P312 and its clades were in place before anyone began speaking either Celtic or Germanic, so that a P312 with ancestry in North Germany can be confident his ancestors went directly from speaking Ka*pong! Bo*ing! or whatever it was to some form of early German and never passed through a Celtic or Iberian phase.

That could be very true, but it still doesn't alter the overall distribution of P312 and its general good fit for the old Celtic homelands. And it also doesn't alter the fact that much of Germany was once inhabited by Celts, who were especially strong in the South and West, where P312 is prevalent.

As for where U106 came from, whether it spread from the Netherlands to Scandinavia or vice versa or from somewhere else to both of those places, I guess one would have to look at the variance of U106 and find out where its most diverse haplotypes are. I seem to remember that Tim Janzen actually did that and found U106 to be most diverse in Eastern Europe, but I might be mistaken.

Since this is an interesting issue, I will depart from my stance of not responding further on the general question. Recently someone who described himself as Irish with a Gaelic surname and who had tested U106* (and was not pleased with being informed that indicated an Anglo-Saxon origin), asked on another forum in what region did U106 display the greatest genetic diversity. Many pages later, after repeatedly statements that the greatest concentration was in Frisia, no one was able to provide an answer. Someone posted a link to variance data by one of the U106 project administrators. Vince V. had the following to say about it:"Better to say that the data which exist shows that all regions have roughly the same variance."Personally I would expect both P312 and U106 to be more diverse in eastern Europe, more likely southeastern Europe, because that is where I suspect both subclades were born. Unfortunately that is a region which probably one of the most undertested.

What about the purported remark by Dr. Hammer that as much as 50% of R1b in Norway might be L21?

I have no doubt that some portion of the L21 in Scandinavia is a later import, but I suspect that is most likely a small portion.

I don't find "near 67 marker marches" with Welsh and Irish persons too persuasive, as you yourself have often mentioned similar results between R1b's of different subclades. Considering the enormous preponderance of British Isles entries over Scandinavians in Ysearch, it doesn't surprise me that a Scandinavian is likely to have more matches with Britons than with other Scandinavians in that database.

These Welsh and Irish matches are pretty close, close enough that there is little doubt they are all L21+ and all probably from the same neck of the woods. I wouldn't have mentioned them otherwise, because I don't consider a gd of 9 or 10 at 67 markers close. The matches I am talking about range from 63/67 to 60/67 for the Scandinavian with the Irish matches, and from 61/67 to 59/67 for the Scandinavian with the Welsh matches. While it is remotely possible that they mean absolutely nothing and are merely coincidental, the fact that they are all also "coincidentally" Irish on the one hand and Welsh on the other makes that very unlikely.

I think what Hammer actually said last year was that 50% of FTDNA's database of SNP-tested Norwegian R1b1b2s was L21+.

This is kind of a funny (in the sense of ironic, as well as amusing) thread to me, because I find myself arguing for a British Isles origin for some of our L21+ Scandinavians (only five of them, actually), and that is something I definitely don't like doing, since the out-of-the-Isles thing irks me to no end.

But I have to be honest. If I wasn't convinced, believe me, I wouldn't say what I'm saying.

Ironically with the closer GD's that you are looking at, the TMRCA gets younger, therefore taking these people out of the Viking migration age and more into the 11th thru 13th centuries. Were Vikings still taking slaves back to Scandinavia in this timeframe? The onset of William and the Normans is considered the end of the Viking age so the GD's evaluated speak more to the Norman age, be they a widely mixed group, many of which may have been Gauls anyway.

Ironically with the closer GD's that you are looking at, the TMRCA gets younger, therefore taking these people out of the Viking migration age and more into the 11th thru 13th centuries. Were Vikings still taking slaves back to Scandinavia in this timeframe? The onset of William and the Normans is considered the end of the Viking age so the GD's evaluated speak more to the Norman age, be they a widely mixed group, many of which may have been Gauls anyway.

One should allow for a fairly wide margin of error either side of any TMRCA. Could be 11th-13th centuries, could be Viking Era slave trade, could be Viking settlement in Britain, etc.

Ironically with the closer GD's that you are looking at, the TMRCA gets younger, therefore taking these people out of the Viking migration age and more into the 11th thru 13th centuries. Were Vikings still taking slaves back to Scandinavia in this timeframe? The onset of William and the Normans is considered the end of the Viking age so the GD's evaluated speak more to the Norman age, be they a widely mixed group, many of which may have been Gauls anyway.

One should allow for a fairly wide margin of error either side of any TMRCA. Could be 11th-13th centuries, could be Viking Era slave trade, could be Viking settlement in Britain, etc.

This is why I don't like TMRCA's for clusters or genealogical purposes. There is no firm answer as anything can be recLOH or some kind of exception on a small scale.

FTDNA should have better insight into TMRCA's than you or I. They says some of those folks you and I described (Welsh/Irish + 1 Swede) as greater than 95% odds to be within 24 generations. At 30 yrs/gen you get 720 years. That's the outside edge of their 95% confidence and that seems too young, but to go back as far as another 400-500 years to 800-900 AD seems a little too far back of an adjustment for a "95%" confidence TMRCA... IMHO.

From what I've read, the Vikings had much less success and frequency in settling in Wales than in Ireland, Scotland and England. The Vikings who did attack Wales were primarily Irish-Vikings so I'd expect more of this variety of people (that I call R-L21* 11-13 Combo Group B-2) from Ireland relative to Wales, but we don't see that.

I just don't see how the Swede in the group was a captured Welsh slave taken back to the Baltic. Probably some Welsh would have been taken back to Ireland by both the Vikings and the Gaels pre-1000 AD. However, the diversity of this 11-13 B-2 group is in Wales and Western England. Also the TMRCA data is quite a bit off to be in the ages of Viking raiding.

Still the question is open - how does a Swede fit into this variety of men?

I don't think it is a genetic coincidence. 19/394=15 YCAII=18,13 406s1=11 617=13 444=13 are not fast markers. This is a pretty strong pattern.

As I have often stated, I have a strong interest in R1b in Scandinavia. Therefore I was very interested in the data from the most recent Myres et al. study. Of particular interest were the results from Sweden. Unfortunately only a very small area was tested, but the number was comparatively large (139). The study labels the area in question as Malmö, which is a little confusing as this is a city and a municipal district, but not a county or province. It is located in southwest Sweden, across the Øresund channel from Copenhagen, in an area clalled Skåne. Skåne was part of Denmark from before the Viking age until the 17th century, when it ceeded to Sweden by Denmark after a war.

Here are what I believe to be some of the noteworthy results, stated in percentage of the total sample:

A couple of observations, in line with some of the positions I have taken in earlier posts on this thread. P312 and subclades were more than double U106 (16 vs. 6).U198 continues to demonstrate a near complete absence from Scandinavia. I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that it ever had a presence there.

I do not suggest these numbers should be taken as representative of Sweden as a whole. The gentic study of seven different provinces in Sweden I cited in my initial post on this thread shows R1b is not uniformly spread across Sweden. Its strongest presence, where it was the most common haplogroup, was in the provinces of Skaraborg and Ötergötland/Jönköping, which are located some distance north of Malmö. R1b was however the second most common HG in the other five provinces tested.

But just look at the map of U106 in Scandinavia in the Myres et al report. One would never know that they didn't test any Norwegians and that U106 didn't fare so well in Sweden.

Interesting that L21 was the most frequent M269 subclade in Myres' Swedish sample.

The U106 map in the Myres' report is just one more prop to what I consider to be the U106 myth.

I do believe that part of the problem is that everyone compares U106 as a whole with P312 only after it has been broken down into subclades. I think this is largely due to the accident of when the various SNPs were discovered. If anyone ever started comparing the distribution of U106 subclades against that of P312 subclades, I suspect the analysis would change completely. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. The idea that U106 is monolithic, while P312 can only be analyzed by subclades, is just too ingrained in too many people's thinking.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.L21 is most common R1b subclade.L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.L21 is most common R1b subclade.L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

The L21 to M222 ratio is very different from Ireland so I think we can probably safely say that the stats do not support an Irish Viking slave origin for the bulk of L21 in Scandinavia. I think the problem is that the connections between Scandinavia and the far west (isles, France etc) in the prehistoric period are only hazily represented. It could also be that there is an intermediate common origin point in some area where the L21 element is now too small to pick up the full variance in the sort of sample used. I think there is little doubt that Myres have picked up major expansion points for U152 near the alps and imply one for L21 in the area straddling North/Central France and England but I am not convinced that the sample would have been big enough to get a big enough sample of L21 in areas where it is now rare but potentially old i.e. you need a really big sample to pick up the variance of a clade in an area where it is now rare. I suspect (although this is a guess) that S116, U152 and L21 actually occurred further east but the trail now is slight. Presumably, as Myres et al observe, a clade could only have the expansion opportunity when it passed surfing the head of a wave into virgin territory. There may be a long tail of a clades travels before it got the chance to expand. In other words there is a period between 'one guy with the SNP' and 'first big expansion' that is hard to detect.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.L21 is most common R1b subclade.L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

I wouldn't take a lack of response to personally, a lot of people are probably having trouble accessing the forum since Worldfamilies.net got hijacked the other day. I still can't get in from the UK, but found a proxy that allowed me access, so today I'm posting from somewhere in America apparently.

Though I'm not surprised that P312+ is relatively common in Scandinavia I must say I'm a little surprised that P312+ would significantly outstrip U106.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.L21 is most common R1b subclade.L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

I wouldn't take a lack of response to personally, a lot of people are probably having trouble accessing the forum since Worldfamilies.net got hijacked the other day. I still can't get in from the UK, but found a proxy that allowed me access, so today I'm posting from somewhere in America apparently.

Though I'm not surprised that P312+ is relatively common in Scandinavia I must say I'm a little surprised that P312+ would significantly outstrip U106.

Yes, I agree. That L21 is the most common subclade in Sweden means a lot, especially because of Southern Sweden's importance as the cradle of the Germanic tribes. It must have been really diverse between R1b, R1a, and I developing that culture.

I think the L23 result may be due to the way R1b1b2 spread east-west. If you think about it you will get a progression of L51-L11-then downstream with the mix of each changing as you head east-west. Although Scandinavia is to the north, it is also fairly far east and partly on the longitude of what in cold war terms was reckoned eastern Europe. The upshot of that is that the seas around Scandinavia are accessed by north flowing rivers some of which originate in eastern Europe and essentially link the Scandianvian seas with eastern Europe. If populations tended to follow a Danubian path west then the north was accessed by every north-flowing river from the Black Sea to the Elbe (and beyond). Those rivers lead from the Scandinavian seas towards areas where upstream forms of R1b would be known.

In other words longitude may be more important than latitude in terms of what genes arrived.

Perhaps not too surprisingly, my comments about the Swedish results from the latest Myres study don't seem to have attracted much attention on this forum. However I believe they are important and noteworthy. The large number (139) in the sample and the small area involved suggest to me that these results are more reliable than the some of the very small numbers in the samples for other areas in the same study.

P312 vastly outnumbers U106.L21 is most common R1b subclade.L23 is inexplicably (at least to me) large- 6/139 or 4.3%- the same number as for U106.There is a complete absence (once again) of U198.M222 is present in small but not insignificant numbers.

Surely at least some of these require some explanation.

I don't have much of a reaction because I pretty much agree with you in the first place. P312 may be more common in other places, but it is still at least relatively common in some Scandinavian and Germanic geographies.

The distribution of P312 as you move east from the Isles, France and Iberia appears patchy. In this regard, P312 is quite like more of the other subclades clades, like U106, in Europe - scattered and patchy. The only difference is that relative to its age, P312 also has a large area, the Atlantic fringe, where it is solid* rather than patchy.

I just think more happened as you go east into continental Eurasia so the various clades were moved, washed over, wiped out, etc., etc. in spots. By more happening, I mean things like the Huns, the full Germanic migrations and war after war.

I think the L23 result may be due to the way R1b1b2 spread east-west. If you think about it you will get a progression of L51-L11-then downstream with the mix of each changing as you head east-west. Although Scandinavia is to the north, it is also fairly far east and partly on the longitude of what in cold war terms was reckoned eastern Europe. The upshot of that is that the seas around Scandinavia are accessed by north flowing rivers some of which originate in eastern Europe and essentially link the Scandianvian seas with eastern Europe. If populations tended to follow a Danubian path west then the north was accessed by every north-flowing river from the Black Sea to the Elbe (and beyond). Those rivers lead from the Scandinavian seas towards areas where upstream forms of R1b would be known.

In other words longitude may be more important than latitude in terms of what genes arrived.

I think this must be the most likely explanation, at least in terms of the L23* (sorry for not using the asterisk in my previous posts). It must represent a very early entry of R1b into Scandinavia. I can't think of any other way to account for it. I wonder then whether the arrival of L23* included ht15 subclades along with the ht35. In other words, are we looking at multiple R1b migrations into Scandinavia, or a larger event, such as Corded Ware, of mixed R1b subclades?

While I have said it would be a mistake to assume the Malmö results are applicable to all of Sweden (let alone all of Scandinavia), as far as I know this is this only reasonably large scale R1b SNP analysis of any single location in Scandinavia. I don't think it can be dismissed as some sort of anomaly, just because it doesn't match perceived wisdom.

I believe the large L21 element, especially when coupled with what we know about L21 in Norway, should finally dispose of the question of whether the arrival of L21 in Scandinavia is solely due to Iron Age and modern events. I really think it is much too large to be dismissed by any of the usual arguments various people have put forward- from Viking slaves to wandering monks to Aberdeen merchants and mercenaries.

I also think the P312+ results are far too large to be ascribed to Germanicized Celts, but I really don't want to start that argument again.